Medstead homes bid thrown out by East Hampshire District Council

Monday 15th August 2022 6:00 am
Share
PETERSFIELD FILERS         MRW          29/6/2021

East Hampshire District Council Offices - at Penns Place, Petersfield, Hampshire 

Picture:  Malcolm Wells
East Hampshire District Council has turned down plans for 112 homes in Medstead (Malcolm Wells )

Subscribe newsletter

Subscribe to our email and get updates right in your inbox.

East Hampshire District Council has refused a 112-home development that would have seen green fields and farmland in Medstead concreted over for housing.

Applicant Redrow Homes sought to build them on an 11-acre site west of Longbourn Way in Medstead.

Council officers said the plan should be turned down because of its impact on the countryside, traffic, nutrient pollution and access.

Addressing the planning committee, neighbour Janet King said: “The application builds over valuable farmland and will without a doubt do unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of our rural village.

“We know there is real anger among residents that further green fields could be at risk, adversely affecting our wildlife.

“We’ve seen no evidence of any local need for these houses and this site will therefore just become another commuter estate.”

Speaking for the applicant, Ben Reed said: “The issues raised in the officers’ report are largely resolvable at this stage by reserved matters or planning conditions.

“I passionately believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the local community.

“This scheme is much more than just housing, it was submitted alongside two other applications for an employment hub and the regeneration of Lymington Barns.”

Debating the application, Cllr David Ashcroft said the development was a “badly thought out design”.

He added: “This will create harm and it’s outside the settlement boundary.

“When you have highways saying no and the drainage officers saying no I struggle to see how it could become so.”

Cllr Charles Louisson said: “From an access point of view this cannot be justified, it is clearly in the countryside and it will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring communities.”

Councillors then unanimously voted in favour of the officers’ recommendation to refuse.

More About:

Share

Comments

To leave a comment you need to create an account. |

All comments 0